Minn. Stat. § 480.065

Uniform Certification Of Questions Of Law

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Definitions.

In this section:

(1) "State" means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(2) "Tribe" means a tribe, band, or village of Native Americans which is recognized by federal law or formally acknowledged by a state.

Subd. 2.Power to certify.

The supreme court or the court of appeals of this state, on the motion of a party to pending litigation or its own motion, may certify a question of law to the highest court of another state, of a tribe, of Canada or a Canadian province or territory, or of Mexico or a Mexican state if:

(1) the pending litigation involves a question to be decided under the law of the other jurisdiction;

(2) the answer to the question may be determinative of an issue in the pending litigation; and

(3) the question is one for which an answer is not provided by a controlling appellate decision, constitutional provision, or statute of the other jurisdiction.

Subd. 3.Power to answer.

The supreme court of this state may answer a question of law certified to it by a court of the United States or by an appellate court of another state, of a tribe, of Canada or a Canadian province or territory, or of Mexico or a Mexican state, if the answer may be determinative of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court and there is no controlling appellate decision, constitutional provision, or statute of this state.

Subd. 4.Power to reformulate question.

The supreme court of this state may reformulate a question of law certified to it.

Subd. 5.Certification order; record.

The court certifying a question of law to the supreme court of this state shall issue a certification order and forward it to the supreme court of this state. Before responding to a certified question, the supreme court of this state may require the certifying court to deliver all or part of its record to the supreme court of this state.

Subd. 6.Contents of certification order.

(a) A certification order must contain:

(1) the question of law to be answered;

(2) the facts relevant to the question, showing fully the nature of the controversy out of which the question arose;

(3) a statement acknowledging that the supreme court of this state, acting as the receiving court, may reformulate the question; and

(4) the names and addresses of counsel of record and parties appearing without counsel.

(b) If the parties cannot agree upon a statement of facts, the certifying court shall determine the relevant facts and state them as a part of its certification order.

Subd. 7.Notice; response.

The supreme court of this state, acting as a receiving court, shall notify the certifying court of acceptance or rejection of the question and, in accordance with notions of comity and fairness, respond to an accepted certified question as soon as practicable.

Subd. 8.Procedures.

After the supreme court of this state has accepted a certified question, proceedings are governed by the rules and statutes of this state. Procedures for certification from this state to a receiving court are those provided in the rules and statutes of the receiving forum.

Subd. 9.Opinion.

The supreme court of this state shall state in a written opinion the law answering the certified question and send a copy of the opinion to the certifying court, counsel of record, and parties appearing without counsel.

Subd. 10.Cost of certification.

Fees and costs are the same as in civil appeals docketed before the supreme court of this state and must be equally divided between the parties unless otherwise ordered by the certifying court.

Subd. 11.Short title.

This section may be cited as the "Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act (1997)."

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Lyon Financial Services, Incorporated, d/b/a U.S. Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group v. Illinois Paper and Copier

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lyon Financial Services, Incorporated, d/b/a U.S. Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group v. Illinois Paper and Copier (2014) minn · cites it 6× “” Because Minnesota law governs the contract, the Seventh Circuit certified the following questions to us pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 480.065 (2012): 1. Is reliance an element of a breach-of-express-warranty claim? If so, what type of reliance is required: contract-like reliance or…”

Dohney v. Allstate Insurance Co. (2001) minn · cites it 8× “Allstate moved for summary judgment or in the alternative requested that the federal court certify a question to the Minnesota Supreme Court under Minn.Stat. § 480.065 (2000). The federal court granted the request to certify and issued an order and the certification.”

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018) scotus · cites it 2× “2d 170 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 480.065 (3) (2016) (authorizing the Minnesota Supreme Court to answer certified questions).”

General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin v. Wozniak Travel, Inc. (2009) minn · cites it 4× “by a court of the United States ... if the answer may be determinative of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court and there is no controlling appellate decision, constitutional provision, or statute of this state.”

Brent R. Wilcox v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant/Respondent. (2016) minn · cites it 4× “if the answer may be determinative of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court and there is no controlling appellate decision, constitutional provision, or statute- of this state.”

In Re UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation (2008) minn · cites it 4× “Under Minn.Stat. § 480.065, subd. 3 (2006), we "may answer a question of law certified .”

Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. (2001) minn · cites it 2× “The certification order presents the following two questions, which we have modified slightly pursuant to our authority under Minn.Stat. § 480.065, subd. 4 (2000):(1) must plaintiffs be purchasers of defendants’ products in order to properly plead a claim under MinmStat.”

Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. (2001) minn · cites it 4× “[2] These questions are restated verbatim from the certification order but have been renumbered pursuant to this court's power under Minn.Stat. § 480.065, subd. 4 (2000). [3] Unlike Minn.”

Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC (2017) minn · cites it 2× “2016) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 480.065 , subd. 3 (2016). Certified questions are questions of law that we review de novo.”

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc. (2005) minn · cites it 2× “3, a party insured by an insolvent insurer may be liable to a claimant for any portion of the claim that constitutes the difference between the $300,000 statutory maximum available from the Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Association and the liability limit of the insolvent…”

Fleeger v. Wyeth (2009) minn · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 480.065, subds. 3, 4 (2008), the MDL court certified a question of law to this court, which we accepted and reformulated as follows: In a case commenced in Minnesota, does the Minnesota statute of limitations apply to the personal injury claims of a…”

State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson (2007) minnctapp · cites it 2× “, Minn.Stat. § 480.065, subd. 3 (2006) (permitting supreme court to answer questions certified by federal courts and appellate courts in other states); Minn.”

Show all 37 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.